Pendergrass v. Rowe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEVEN PENDERGRASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN ROWE, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: JRR-26-1793
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Pendergrass, who is currently incarcerated at Western Correctional
Institution, has requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Because Pendergrass appears indigent, his request to proceed without pre-payment of the filing
fee is granted. His Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been reviewed by the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A criteria. 	For the reasons that follow, the
Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A of 28 U.S.C. require the Court to conduct an initial
screening of this complaint. 	The Court is required to dismiss a complaint if the action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A(b).
Pendergrass alleges that on July 6, 2025, he was transferred from Washington County
Detention Center (“WCDC”) to Maryland Correctional Training Center (“MCTC”) to serve 18
months. ECF No. 1 at 4. Pendergrass states that all of his belongings should have been transferred
to MCTC with him but his wallet was not sent with the rest of his personal property. 	Id.
Case 1:26-cv-01793-JRR Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Pendergrass filed a grievance trying to locate his wallet but was unsuccessful until he was
transferred back to WCDC. Id. at 4-5. Upon his return, on March 13, 2026, he was informed that
his wallet had been at WCDC the entire time. 	Id. at 5. 	Pendergrass speculates that “they did
something with [his] identity and money bank or any of [his] personal information.” Id. He asserts
that the loss of his wallet caused him stress; seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id.
Pendergrass’s temporary loss of his wallet does not amount to a due process violation under
the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of lost or stolen property, sufficient due process is afforded
to a prisoner if he has access to an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527, 540 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).
The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts constitutes an adequate post
deprivation remedy. See Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md. 1982). The Supreme
Court has also extended its Parratt holding to intentional deprivations of property. See Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3203 (1984). 	As such, neither the negligent nor
intentional loss of his property would be sufficient to state a claim for relief. 	Also, notably,
Pendergrass’s property was ultimately returned to him. 	Therefore, this Complaint will be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.1
Pendergrass is advised that his right to pursue relief in federal court at public expense will
be greatly curtailed if he has three actions or appeals dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) and 1915A(b)(1). 	Specifically, if he has “on three or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless” he can establish he “is under imminent danger
1 Because the Complaint must be dismissed, Pendergrass’s Motion to Add Hagerstown Police Dept. (ECF No. 9) will
be denied.
Case 1:26-cv-01793-JRR Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Additionally, dismissal with or without prejudice
for any of the grounds enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) may later be deemed a
“strike” under the Act. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, _U.S._, 140 S.Ct. 1721, 1724 (2020), see also
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Pitts v. South Carolina, 65 F.4th 141 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding district court
may not, at the time it dismisses a complaint under §1915(e), determine that the dismissal will
count as a strike in the future application of § 1915(g)’s three strike rule).
Accordingly, it is this 15th day of October, 2026, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1. 	Pendergrass’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) IS GRANTED;
2. 	Pendergrass’s Motion to Add Hagerstown Police Dept. (ECF No. 9) IS DENIED;
3. 	The Complaint IS DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
1915A(b)(1); and
4. 	The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Pendergrass and CLOSE this
case.
/S/
____________________________
Julie R. Rubin
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01793-JRR Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3